Re: [HMM 14/16] mm/hmm/devmem: device memory hotplug using ZONE_DEVICE

Balbir Singh
2017-04-10T04:31:50Z

On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 12:26 -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 10:02:55PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 11:37:34AM +1000, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 16:40 -0400, Jérôme Glisse wrote:
> > > > This introduce a simple struct and associated helpers for device driver
> > > > to use when hotpluging un-addressable device memory as ZONE_DEVICE. It
> > > > will find a unuse physical address range and trigger memory hotplug for
> > > > it which allocates and initialize struct page for the device memory.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Evgeny Baskakov <ebaskakov@nvidia.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Mark Hairgrove <mhairgrove@nvidia.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Sherry Cheung <SCheung@nvidia.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Subhash Gutti <sgutti@nvidia.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > include/linux/hmm.h | 114 +++++++++++++++
> > > > mm/Kconfig | 9 ++
> > > > mm/hmm.c | 398 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 3 files changed, 521 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * To add (hotplug) device memory, HMM assumes that there is no real resource
> > > > + * that reserves a range in the physical address space (this is intended to be
> > > > + * use by unaddressable device memory). It will reserve a physical range big
> > > > + * enough and allocate struct page for it.
> > >
> > > I've found that the implementation of this is quite non-portable, in that
> > > starting from iomem_resource.end+1-size (which is effectively -size) on
> > > my platform (powerpc) does not give expected results. It could be that
> > > additional changes are needed to arch_add_memory() to support this
> > > use case.
> >
> > The CDM version does not use that part, that being said isn't -size a valid
> > value we care only about unsigned here ? What is the end value on powerpc ?
> > In any case this sounds more like a unsigned/signed arithmetic issue, i will
> > look into it.
> >

Thanks!

> > >
> > > > +
> > > > + size = ALIGN(size, SECTION_SIZE);
> > > > + addr = (iomem_resource.end + 1ULL) - size;
> > >
> > >
> > > Why don't we allocate_resource() with the right constraints and get a new
> > > unused region?
> >
> > The issue with allocate_resource() is that it does scan the resource tree
> > from lower address to higher ones. I was told that it was less likely to
> > have hotplug issue conflict if i pick highest physicall address for the
> > device memory hence why i do my own scan from the end toward the start.
> >
> > Again all this function does not apply to PPC, it can be hidden behind
> > x86 config if you prefer it.
>
> Ok so i have look into it and there is no arithmetic bug in my code the
> issue is simpler than that. It seems only x86 clamp iomem_resource.end to
> MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS so using allocate_resource() would just hide the issue.

>
> It is fine not to clamp if you know that you won't get resource with
> funky physical address but in case of UNADDRESSABLE i do not get any
> physical address so i have to pick one and i want to pick one that is
> unlikely to cause trouble latter on with someone hotpluging memory.
>
> If we care about the UNADDRESSABLE case on powerpc i see 2 way to fix
> this. Clamp iomem_resource.end to MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS or restrict my scan
> in hmm to MIN(iomem_resource.end, 1UL << MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS) the latter
> is probably safer and more bullet proof in respect to other arch getting
> interested in this.
>

We do care about UNADDRESSABLE for certain platforms on powerpc

I think MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS sounds good or we can make it an arch hook. I spoke
to Michael Ellerman and he recommended we do either. We can't clamp down
iomem_resource.end in the arch as we have other things beyond MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS,
but doing the walk in HMM from the end of MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS is a good idea to
begin with.

Balbir Singh.